Antarctic Ice Discussion

[knocker]

This is the speech in Warsaw. And not only that God is batting for them.

 

We in America watched as brave Polish workers took to the streets to demand political and economic freedom. Today on my first visit to your wonderful country I am proud to stand with you in a new battle for freedom against those who would use environmental and climate alarmism to steal away our liberties and to give international bureaucrats control over our energy sources, our daily lives, our prosperity and our national sovereignty. Last year the head of the UN climate conference said that the goal of the United Nations was a complete economic transformation of the world. That is what they desire. But that is not good news for those of us who love freedom. And it is not good new for the people of Poland. The Old Testament Book of Proverbs it says that the wicked flee they run away.  The wicked run away. Even when no-one is chasing them. But the righteous good people they are bold as a lion. The environmentalists and the bureaucrats they don't want to debate these issues. Because they know they are deceiving the world. There hasn't been any global warming in more than 15 years and this is simply an excuse for more government oppression. But thankfully you and I are not deceived. We stand for freedom. We stand for opportunity. We stand for our families. And we stand for a strong and prosperous future. Together let us be bold as a lion. Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today. And may god bless Poland.

[knocker]

Warm Ocean Causing Most Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss

 

 

In some places, basal melt exceeds iceberg calving. In other places, the opposite is true. But in total, Antarctic ice shelves lost 2,921 trillion pounds (1,325 trillion kilograms) of ice per year in 2003 to 2008 through basal melt, while iceberg formation accounted for 2,400 trillion pounds (1,089 trillion kilograms) of mass loss each year.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that sometimes, some folk get so lost in their searching for a rebuttal that they don't really check out the solidity of the data/source of the data Knocks?

 

I think it understandable that we'd rather find that we have no need to worry than face up to the problems we have? It goes back to to the old 'mourning' analogy with 'denial' being our natural first response? 

 

At times I forget this and probably do more damage than good by rooting out more and more evidence/data to back up my 'understandings' leaving the person,  who is already struggling to deal with the current scientific certainties, with even more reason to panic and push away the troubling reality?

[knocker]

It would appear that the recovery of the ozone hole is not quite straightforward.

 

NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole

 

 

NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

 

More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-results-from-inside-the-ozone-hole/#.UqmJ5CcQ2VJ

[stewfox]

I think that sometimes, some folk get so lost in their searching for a rebuttal that they don't really check out the solidity of the data/source of the data Knocks?

 

I think it understandable that we'd rather find that we have no need to worry than face up to the problems we have? It goes back to the old 'mourning' analogy with 'denial' being our natural first response? 

 

At times I forget this and probably do more damage than good by rooting out more and more evidence/data to back up my 'understandings' leaving the person,  who is already struggling to deal with the current scientific certainties, with even more reason to panic and push away the troubling reality?

 

 

I think the point re 20% was well made. You and I have no idea if increased snow fall will off set ice loss in the next 50 years. Should do, 'IF' the Plateau 'warms up'.

 

You have to remember most parts of Antarctic are drier then many deserts and any increase in snow fall accumulation that doesn't melt way in the summer would have a big impact.

 

Looking at grivances of Polish workers ? Struggling to see the scientific significance of that related to the Antarctica ?

Edited December 12, 2013 by stewfox

[stewfox]

This is the speech in Warsaw. And not only that God is batting for them.

 

We in America watched as brave Polish workers took to the streets to demand political and economic freedom. Today on my first visit to your wonderful country I am proud to stand with you in a new battle for freedom against those who would use environmental and climate alarmism to steal away our liberties and to give international bureaucrats control over our energy sources, our daily lives, our prosperity and our national sovereignty. Last year the head of the UN climate conference said that the goal of the United Nations was a complete economic transformation of the world. That is what they desire. But that is not good news for those of us who love freedom. And it is not good new for the people of Poland. The Old Testament Book of Proverbs it says that the wicked flee they run away.  The wicked run away. Even when no-one is chasing them. But the righteous good people they are bold as a lion. The environmentalists and the bureaucrats they don't want to debate these issues. Because they know they are deceiving the world. There hasn't been any global warming in more than 15 years and this is simply an excuse for more government oppression. But thankfully you and I are not deceived. We stand for freedom. We stand for opportunity. We stand for our families. And we stand for a strong and prosperous future. Together let us be bold as a lion. Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today. And may god bless Poland.

 

 

Maybe they 'suffer' paying green taxes on unfounded theories ? Not sure what your point is ? Again it comes back to 'cost' rarely mention on these threads. However going off topic me thinks

Edited December 12, 2013 by stewfox

[knocker]

Maybe they 'suffer' paying green taxes on unfounded theories ? Not sure what your point is ? Again it comes back to 'cost' rarely mention on these threads. However going off topic me thinks

 

I would have thought my point was obvious. It makes no difference whether you are pro AGW or against there is no place for the drivel that emanates from sites such as this in any scientific, social or economic debate. I still consider most of them to be barking but then that's just my opinion.

[knocker]

It would appear that the recovery of the ozone hole is not quite straightforward.

 

NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-results-from-inside-the-ozone-hole/#.UqmJ5CcQ2VJ

 

I don't want upset the susceptibilities of some worthies on here again by having a rant about Watts but for some reason WUPT seems to be having hysterics over the above. Apparently the hole isn't caused by CFCs at all. Anyway I'll just copy two comments from the illiterati so I can post a brief history that some may find of interest.

 

As it happens I met Dr. Jon shanklin from the BAS, who discovered the ozone hole, on a number of occasions as he used to bring his newbies down to Camborne for observing training and use our Dobson. By that time he was past the age limit and couldn't go down south much to his chagrin. The extract after the pearls of wisdom is courtesy of G. E. Fogg, A History of Antarctic Science, CUP.

 

Jimbo, like a lot of WUWT-ers asks (excerpt)

 

:December 11, 2013 at 4:02 pm

 

Is it just possible that the Ozone hole has always been there?

So does Quinn who says (excerpt):

 December 11, 2013 at 4:21 pm

 

The first satellites that specifically went looking for ozone depletion found the hole, but for all we know the hole has been there for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years or longer. As far as I know, there is no conclusive data indicating that the hole was not there prior to the widespread use of CFC’s.

 

Atmospheric chemistry: ozone

 

This brings us to a finding of Antarctic research which has attracted much public attention in recent years - the depletion of stratospheric ozone. Interest in atmospheric ozone began with G. M. B. Dobson, a British meteorologist. Studies of meteor trails led to the discovery of a region in the stratosphere at a height of about 50 km which owed its high temperature to absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone. Dobson invented a spectrophotometric method of measuring its total amount in the air column and in the 1930s set up a chain of ozone measuring stations (Lloyd, 1989). Systematic measurements using the Dobson instruments at Argentine Islands (Faraday) and Halley Bay (Halley), were begun in 1957. Measurements were also made at other IGY Antarctic stations including Little America. The interest was that ozone, being produced photochemically at heights of between 20 and 50 km, mostly at low latitudes or, in the summer only, at high latitudes, could be used as a tracer of atmospheric circulation at high levels. It was found that a major increase in total ozone occurs in the course of breakdown of the Antarctic winter stratospheric vortex. Long-term trends, however, seemed to be small, less than those at lower latitudes (Farman, 1977).

 

Meanwhile concern had been growing about effects of human activities on the ozone layer which might result in penetration of damaging amounts of ultraviolet radiation to ground level. Lovelock (Lovelock et al, 1973), on a cruise on RRS Shackleton, which took him into Antarctic waters, found that chlorofluorocarbons (Freons or CFCs), much used in industry as aerosol propellants and refrigerants, and entirely anthropogenic, were accumulating in the lower atmosphere. Rather incautiously, although there were no indications to the contrary at the time, Lovelock remarked that these substances constituted no conceivable hazard. When it was realized that chlorine can be an agent for the catalytic destruction of ozone, Molina & Rowland (1974) pointed out that CFCs transported into the stratosphere would be photolysed to yield reactive chlorine, which in turn would destroy ozone. This possibility was taken seriously and in the UK in 1979 the Department of the Environment in its second report on the subject, concluded from theoretical studies that in the steady state for release of CFCs at the current level, stratospheric ozone would be reduced by between 11 and 16 per cent. Around this time the use of CFCs as aerosol propellants was banned in the US and reduced in the UK. The need for better understanding of processes in the stratosphere, more extensive and accurate monitoring of stratospheric ozone, and intergovernmental action to reduce global production of CFCs was recognized. Detecting the effects of man-made chemicals on stratospheric ozone is difficult because ozone fluctuates considerably in concentration through natural causes. In addition to a ground-based network of Dobson spectrophotometers supplemented by balloon-borne ozone sondes, the US launched an ozone measuring system on the near-polar orbiting satellite Nimbus 7 in 1979.

 

This was the total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS) which uses back scattered solar ultraviolet radiation to produce daily maps of vertically integrated (total) ozone over the entire sunlit portion of the globe. The calibration of this instrument has been a problem, there being uncertainty as to whether a drift in time relative to ground-based measurements of ozone values is an artefact due to calibration drift or real drift due to global or local increases in tropospheric ozone, which would affect the ground based instruments more strongly. However, it seems reasonably certain from a critical consideration of the satellite data over the period 1979-86 the actual decrease in global-mean total ozone was about five per cent (Bowman, 1988), an appreciable but not catastrophic fall. It was therefore sensational when BAS observations by conventional spectrophotometric measurements from the ground at Halley Station showed a deep minimum in spring with the 1984 values down by about a third from the 1957-77 values (Farman eta!., 1985). The US satellite ozone measuring system had evidently missed this because it was programmed to discard low values, which it. was presumed would be due to instrumental error, but re-examination of the data confirmed in the Antarctic spring.

 

That should clear that up and hope it is of some interest.

Edited December 12, 2013 by knocker

[4wd]

Why not paste in one of the more insightful comments.Since you made me look for it this is interesting:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/at-agu-nasa-says-cfc-reduction-is-not-shrinking-the-ozone-hole-yet/ 

 

 

Just The Facts says:December 11, 2013 at 6:29 pmYes, the “ozone hole†is likely a result of the dynamical effect of the stratospheric polar vortex, i.e.:

“The ozone hole is in the center of a spiraling mass of air over the Antarctic that is called the polar vortex. The vortex is not stationary and sometimes moves as far north as the southern half of South America, taking the ozone hole with it.â€http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/HALOE-Ozone.html

And there are other “holes†along with the ozone one, i.e.

“The walls of the polar vortex act as the boundaries for the extraordinary changes in chemical concentrations. Now the polar vortex can be considered a sealed chemical reactor bowl, containing a water vapor hole, a nitrogen oxide hole and an ozone hole, all occurring simultaneously (Labitzke and Kunze 2005)â€http://books.google.com/books?id=B93SSQrcAh4C&lpg=PA283&ots=d0-uBRjmyI&dq=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=%22water%20vapor%20hole%22%20polar%20vortex&f=false

“measurements of low methane concentrations in the vortex made by the HALOE instrument on board the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.†Rapid descent of mesospheric air into the stratospheric polar vortex, AGU 1993http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93GL01104/abstract

For those not familiar, Polar Vortices:

“are caused when an area of low pressure sits at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the atmosphere, like water going down a drain.â€http://www.universetoday.com/973/what-venus-and-saturn-have-in-common/

“A polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.†“The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

Polar Vortices and their “holes†also exist on Mars;http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/sixthmars2003/pdf/3248.pdf

Venus;http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/venus-polar-vortex/

Saturn;http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/atmosphere/south_polar_vortex.html

and Saturn’s Moon Titan;http://www.space.com/16520-saturn-s-moon-titan-sports-polar-vortex-video.html

Long-term vortices are a frequent phenomenon in the atmospheres of fast rotating planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, for example. Venus rotates slowly, yet it has permanent vortices in its atmosphere at both poles. What is more, the rotation speed of the atmosphere is much greater than that of the planet. “We’ve known for a long time that the atmosphere of Venus rotates 60 times faster than the planet itself, but we didn’t know why. The difference is huge; that is why it’s called super-rotation. And we’ve no idea how it started or how it keeps going.â€

The permanence of the Venus vortices contrasts with the case of the Earth. “On the Earth there are seasonal effects and temperature differences between the continental zones and the oceans that create suitable conditions for the formation and dispersal of polar vortices. On Venus there are no oceans or seasons, and so the polar atmosphere behaves very differently,†says Garate-Lopez. http://phys.org/news/2013-03-south-polar-vortex-venus-atmosphere.html#jCp

However, it is not really “at the end of the winterâ€, but the second half. The Southern Hemisphere Polar Vortex usually occurs from May to December;

(apologies for destroyed formatting)

[knocker]

Why is it interesting it's just a copy and paste of the NASA press release without a link as usual which I'd already posted. Although he did link to the very good Goddard site. My main reason for posting was partly to show the ignorance of the camp followers but mainly because I thought some might be interested in the chain of events and the evolution of the science. Wrong again.

 

I'm afraid I completely fail to see the relevance of the rest of your post.

[knocker]

 

Looking at grivances of Polish workers ? Struggling to see the scientific significance of that related to the Antarctica ?

 

Well you quoted and posted a link to his denier website and the relevance is he is financed by the fossil fuel industry in the US and he just happened to pop over and have a chat with the Polish coal workers. None of the CFACT board have any scientific qualifications including Morano. So there is no scientific significance including Antarctica. The actual significance is to pop over to the Warsaw Climate Change Summit and spout some gobbledegook in support of the coal workers whilst denying CO₂ influence on climate change at all cost at the behest of his paymasters.

 

He does have one prestigious accolade he was named  the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year", 2012, by Media Matters of America

Edited December 12, 2013 by knocker

[4wd]

 

 

I'm afraid I completely fail to see the relevance of the rest of your post.

It was highlighting your turning another thread into an anti-watts personal blog.

How is the Antarctic Ice doing BTW?

Oh still at record highs and global ice has been above long term norm for the longest period since..... quite a few years ago.

Someone said it was death spiraling  

 

[knocker]

It was highlighting your turning another thread into an anti-watts personal blog. 

 

I was what. My point was to post a brief history of ozone measurement and the discovery of the hole as I thought it might be of interest to some people. I was using the two comments as a point. I've really had enough of this crap. I'm out of here. Keep up the good work.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It was highlighting your turning another thread into an anti-watts personal blog.

How is the Antarctic Ice doing BTW?

Oh still at record highs and global ice has been above long term norm for the longest period since..... quite a few years ago.

Someone said it was death spiraling  

I think any thread based on science is anti-Watts by definition!

Conveniently mixing up sea and land ice again, and references to the Arctic with Antarctica...

I wonder if the trend since 98 is statistically significant, or can we start claiming no sea ice growth in 16 years!?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm wondering what the coming Southern summer will bring ? With the rest of the globe seeing a 'different' year this past 12 months maybe we'll see sea ice levels also 'acting different'?

 

All in all the continued warming of the rest of the planet will eventually work its way into Antarctica proper (and not just the Peninsula where warming rates are above those seen across the rest of the globe?).

 

What then for the Ice sheets there and sea levels around the Globe?

[mikeworst]

What continued warming???

[BornFromTheVoid]

What continued warming???

 

The continued accumulation of heat within the climate system: land, ocean, ice and air.

[jonboy]

The continued accumulation of heat within the climate system: land, ocean, ice and air.

 

You forgot to add plants and animals!!!!

[thetonynator]

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=183714#.UqhDU_RdVB0

 

So not only are satellites enabling us to track down the lowest temperature ever measured on the planet ( see above) they can also now better track the ice losses from the ice sheets there. It appears that 'the only way is up' for mass loss from West Antarctica? When you see folk pointing at sea ice levels getting higher over the past 20 years try and balance that temporary gain ( the 'extra ice melts each summer) with this constant , year on year, 'loss' from the land ice behind and then you decide which is of most significance.

 

If ice area levels were currently 1.2m km^2 below average, you would be harping on incessantly about albedo and feedbacks, yet when they are 1.2m km^2 above average there isn't even a mention about the positive feedback effects this could be having? Especially given that it is now mid summer in Antarctica and the sun is approaching its highest angle. 

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you have confused the 'scale' of the issue 'T'?

 

What ,as a percentage, does the higher level of ice retention mean in terms of extra percentage of what we would normally see across the summer southern  ocean? Now when that figure increases to even find itself in the same ball park as the percentage losses in the Arctic ( in both early summer snow melt uncovering land early and summer sea ice cover no longer covering expanses of ocean) then we might have something meriting discussion ( I think?).

 

Anyone got any numbers to help illustrate this point? I'm sure we are looking at 1/3rd reduction in Arctic sea ice cover since the late 80's (33%) and up to a month for 'early snow cover loss'? Are current Sea ice anoms in Antarctica adding up to 10% yet?

 

EDIT: I'll have a peep at what the current C.T. ice levels are compared to the average and see what the excess is? I may be a little low on the Arctic sea ice levels as both Baffin and Barentsz haven't carried average ice levels all year for over a decade so the influence there would be over 6 months of the year?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[mikeworst]

You forgot to add plants and animals!!!!

 

That right? Well when they run out of hidey holes maybe you-all want to come check out my shed. Cuppa hot coffee in there.

Edited December 13, 2013 by mikeworst

[thetonynator]

I think you have confused the 'scale' of the issue 'T'?

 

What ,as a percentage, does the higher level of ice retention mean in terms of extra percentage of what we would normally see across the summer southern  ocean? Now when that figure increases to even find itself in the same ball park as the percentage losses in the Arctic ( in both early summer snow melt uncovering land early and summer sea ice cover no longer covering expanses of ocean) then we might have something meriting discussion ( I think?).

 

Anyone got any numbers to help illustrate this point? I'm sure we are looking at 1/3rd reduction in Arctic sea ice cover since the late 80's (33%) and up to a month for 'early snow cover loss'? Are current Sea ice anoms in Antarctica adding up to 10% yet?

 

EDIT: I'll have a peep at what the current C.T. ice levels are compared to the average and see what the excess is? I may be a little low on the Arctic sea ice levels as both Baffin and Barentsz haven't carried average ice levels all year for over a decade so the influence there would be over 6 months of the year?

 

I'm not confusing anything 'G', I understand its insignificance completely just pointing out your double standards.

 

Just for the sake of argument, the antarctic ice area is 13.2% above average at the moment, whereas 7 days before the solstice in the northern hemisphere the arctic ice was 6.5% below average. 

Edited December 14, 2013 by thetonynator

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm not confusing anything 'G', I understand its insignificance completely just pointing out your double standards.

 

Just for the sake of argument, the antarctic ice area is 13.2% above average at the moment, whereas 7 days before the solstice in the northern hemisphere the arctic ice was 6.5% below average. 

 

When discussing albedo changes, it's necessary to take into account ice thickness and snow cover. Thinner ice is more transparent to light, and in June last year, while extent was negligibly below average, the ice was about 45% thinner than normal and northern hemisphere snow cover was 36% below average, reducing snow cover by 3.4 million km2.

 

The current Antarctic sea ice gain is a useful -ve feedback, but is dwarfed by the summer changes in the northern hemisphere.

[knocker]

Another difference between the Arctic and Antarctic that Jason Box and others are currently investigating is the effect of soot in the arctic. There was a presentation about sensitivity of Greenland reflectivity to black carbon at the recent AGU13. (Haven't seen a transcript). The Dark snow project is ongoing.

 

 

Soot is a multiplier in the “albedo feedback†that has doubled surface melting on Greenland in the last decade. Jet stream heat waves alone don’t double Greenland’s sea level contribution. Also since my last message to you, we’ve now published a unified theory that links surface melting with ice flow.

 

http://darksnowproject.org/

[thetonynator]

When discussing albedo changes, it's necessary to take into account ice thickness and snow cover. Thinner ice is more transparent to light, and in June last year, while extent was negligibly below average, the ice was about 45% thinner than normal and northern hemisphere snow cover was 36% below average, reducing snow cover by 3.4 million km2.

 

The current Antarctic sea ice gain is a useful -ve feedback, but is dwarfed by the summer changes in the northern hemisphere.

 

I understand that I'm more pointing out that some people will only ever take note of the negative points, and will completely ignore a situation that is not dire.